Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TRINIDAD G.R. No. 225973

H. REPUNO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, NERI JAVIER
COLMENARES, MARIA CAROLINA P.
ARAULLO, M.D., SAMAHAN NG EXDETAINEES
LABAN SA DETENSYON
AT ARESTO (SELDA), represented by
DIONITO CABILLAS, CARMENCITA
M. FLORENTINO, RODOLFO DEL
ROSARIO, FELIX C. DALISAY, and
DANILO M. DELA FUENTE,
Petitioners,

- versus -

REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO c.

ENRIQUEZ (in his capacity as the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Reservist and Retiree
Affairs, Armed Forces of the Philippines),
The Grave Services Unit (Philippine
Army), and GENERAL RICARDO R.
VISAYA (in his capacity as the Chief of
Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines),
DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
LORENZANA, and HEIRS OF
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, represented
by his surviving spouse Imelda Romualdez
Marcos,
Respondents.
x --------------------------------------------------- x

RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., RENE A.Q.

SAGUISAG, JR., RENE A.C. SAGUISAG
III,
Intervenors.
x --------------------------------------------------- x

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, in his G.R. No. 225984

personal and official capacities and as a
member of Congress and as the Honorary
Chairperson of the Families of Victims of
Involuntary Disappearance (FIND);
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF
INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE
(FIND), represented by its CoChairperson,
NILDA L. SEVILLA; REP.
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.;
REP. TOMASITO S. VILLARIN; REP.
EDGAR R. ERICE; and REP.
EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
Petitioners,

- versus -

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR

C. MEDIALDEA; DEFENSE
SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA;
AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
RICARDO R. VISAYA; AFP DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL
ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ; and HEIRS
OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
represented by his surviving spouse
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS,
Respondents.
x --------------------------------------------------- x

LORETTA ANN PARGAS-ROSALES, G.R. No. 226097

HILDA B. NARCISO, AIDA F. SANTOSMARANAN,
JO-ANN Q. MAGLIPON,
ZENAIDA S. MIQUE, FE B.
MANGAHAS, MA. CRISTINA P.
BAWAGAN, MILA D. AGUILAR,
MINERVA G. GONZALES, MA.
CRISTINA V. RODRIGUEZ, LOUIE G.
CRISMO, FRANCISCO E. RODRIGO,
JR., LIWAYWAY D. ARCE, and
ABDULMARI DE LEON IMAO, JR.,
Petitioners,
- versus -
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR
C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE
SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA,
AFP DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF REAR
ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ,
AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
RICARDO R. VISAYA, and PHILIPPINE
VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE (PVAO)
Administrator Lt. Gen. Ernesto G.
Carolina (Ret.),
Respondents.
x --------------------------------------------------- x
HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, JOEL C. G.R. No. 226116
LAMAN GAN, FRANCIS X.
MANGLAPUS, EDILBERTO C. DE
JESUS, BELINDA 0. CUNANAN,
CECILIA GUIDOTE ALVAREZ, REX
DEGRACIA LORES, SR., ARNOLD
MARIE NOEL, CARLOS MANUEL,
EDMUND S. TAYAO, DANILO P.
OLIVARES, NOEL F. TRINIDAD, JESUS
DELA FUENTE, REBECCA M.
QUIJANO, FR. BENIGNO BELTRAN,
SVD, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA,
AUGUSTO A. LEGASTO, JR., and JULIA
KRISTINA P. LEGASTO,
Petitioners,
- versus -
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR
C. MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE
SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA,
AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN.
RICARDO R. VISAYA, AFP DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF REAR ADMIRAL
ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ, and
PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
OFFICE (PVAO) of the DND,
Respondents.
x --------------------------------------------------- x
ZAIRA PATRICIA B. BANIAGA, JOHN G.R. No. 226117
ARVIN BUENAAGUA, JOANNE ROSE
SACE LIM, JUAN ANTONIO RAROGAL
MAGALANG,
Petitioners,
- versus -
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
DELFIN N. LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF
OF STAFF RICARDO R. VISAYA,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
OFFICE ERNESTO G. CAROLINA,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------ x
ALGAMAR A. LATIPH, G.R. No. 226120
Petitioner,
- versus -
SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
sued in his capacity as Secretary of
National Defense, LT. GEN. RICARDO R.
VISAYA, in his capacity as Chief of Staff
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
LT. GEN. ERNESTO G. CAROLINA
(ret.), in his capacity as Administrator,
Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO),
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------ x
LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as G.R. No. 226294
SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC and as
TAXPAYER,
Petitioner,
- versus -
HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
LORENZANA, AFP CHIEF OF STAFF
LT. GEN. RICARDO R. VISAYA,
UNDERSECRETARY ERNESTO G.
CAROLINA, in his capacity as
PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS
OFFICE (PVAO) ADMINISTRATOR and
B/GEN. RESTITUTO L. AGUILAR, in his
capacity as SHRINE CURATOR AND
CHIEF , VETERANS MEMORIAL
AND HISTORICAL DIVISION and
HEIRS OF FERDINAND EDRALIN
MARCOS,
Respondents.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Of the Decision Dated November 8, 2016)

Petitioners, through counsels, respectfully aver that –

Petitioners received their copy of the Decision promulgated by this Honorable Court on
November 8, 2016 through registered mail on November 11, 2016, which reads –

Conclusion
In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would
justify the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted
to the judgment of another branch. Truly, the President's discretion is not totally
unfettered. "Discretion is not a freespirited stallion that runs and roams wherever
it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its classic formulation,
'discretion is not unconfined and vagrant' but 'canalized within banks that keep it
from overflowing."' 186 At bar, President Duterte, through the public respondents,
acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call of
human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And that is
not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the Framers of
our Constitution intend that full respect for human rights is available at any stage
of a person's development, from the time he or she becomes a person to the time
he or she leaves this earth.

There are certain things that are better left for history - not this Court - to
adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance with the clearly
established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people
themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may require the better
perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must
move on and let this issue rest.
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED.
Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.

Availing of their rights under section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, petitioners move
for the reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on November 8, 2016 based on the
following:

That, there is a need for the issuance of a status quo ante (SQA) order
considering that there had been reports that preparations for the interment of
former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. were already being undertaken by the
government and the Marcos family even if the decision was not yet final and
executory.

That, the petitioners contend that the interment cannot be allowed pending
the finality of the decision.

Petitioners also urged the high court to remind the respondents that
preparations for the burial could not push through because the decision was not
yet final and motions for reconsideration would still be filed.

That, they further argued that a hasty interment of the remains of Marcos
Sr. would result in a grave and irreparable injury to the petitioners’ rights because
it would send the message that the late dictator was a hero.

The petitioners noted that Marcos’ remains had been interred for two
decades in a crypt in Ilocos Norte, thus, the Marcos family would not suffer grave
and irreparable injury if the court issued an SQA pending the finality of its
decision.

DISCUSSION

On the first paragraph, the hasty interment of Marcos Sr. in the LNMB will render
moot the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners. Petitioners are asking
respondents to respect their right to due process as well as that of other human
rights violations’ victims who will be seeking the reversal of the honorable court’s
decision.

Despite the fact that the decision is not final and executory and considering that
the period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration has not even commenced,
there have been reports that the preparations for the interment of former President
Ferdinand Marcos Sr. are being undertaken by respondents causing concern
among petitioners that his remains may be hastily transferred to the Libingan ng
mga Bayani even before the filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioners
or during its pendency.”

Sending this message, which, once made cannot be taken back, is injurious to the
victims of human rights violations during martial law as it honors their tormentor
and puts into question their claims as victims of human rights violations
committed by Marcos Sr. and his henchmen during those dark and bloody days.

It is also injurious to the Filipino people who suffered from poverty through those
years as a result of the plunder of public funds by Marcos Sr.

On the contrary, his hasty interment would only complicate the situation,
especially if the decision was reversed on reconsideration, as this would entail the
exhumation of his remains and its reinterment in Ilocos.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that:

This honorable court to direct respondents to hold in abeyance or refrain

from executing any plans on the interment of the remains of Marcos Sr. at
the Libingan ng mga Bayani pending the finality of the honorable court’s
decision on this Motion for Reconsideration.

Lucena City, Quezon Province, November 29, 2016.

Respectfully submitted.

Loida Alibuyog

Xerxes Batralo

Maria Janina Lourdes Formaran

Jerromeo Brusas

Marilyn Garcia

Louis Aurelio Nava

Mark Adrian Mijares

Liezl De Mesa

Raemeus Evangelista

Julian Suarez

Danica Irish Revilla

Counsels for Petitioners